OT: Goodbye to the American Dream

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 2:20:55 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 10:39:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they formulate
a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a
la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

I got rich by buying stocks instead of buying new cars. Some of it was luck, but mostly just recognizing what companies seemed to have their act together and buying their stock. I bought Texas Instruments, John Fluke, IBM, Hexcel, and others. And bought S & P 500 index funds in my 401K . I also bought a little Nucor stock when it was Nuclear Corp of America. Should have lost my ass on that, but it turned out okay.

It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.

Dan

I don't think that buying established stocks, getting rich that way,
does society much good.

I think it does. If you had zero chance of ever selling your house you'd
have a lot more trouble buying one, getting a loan, or ever justifying the
decision.

A house has real value. People can live in it.

A company can have real value too--it can make something people want. The
ability to make (and sell) something has value, as proven by the fact that
people are willing to pay for it. (Secondarily, companies can have cash and
own assets & land.)

Like a company, a house can have a greatly inflated value. Houses that would
cost $200k in my world might be ten times that in yours, made of the same
materials, similar labor, and offering the same comforts.

Likewise for buying part-ownership in a company. There'd be almost no original
investors if they had no possibility of selling. An active market in parts of
companies--shares--assures the possibility of selling out when you want to.

Much of the stock market is gambling. The real winners are the
brokerages and arbitragers and high-speed traders.

They profit from the gamblers, that's true. Transactions need not cost much
more than $100 or $200 bucks, a lot lower than selling a house.

On average, the total output, productivity, wealth, income, and profit of U..S.
companies increases (in real terms) over time. The people who own a portion
of that are winners too.

I don't see anything harmful in buying a tiny part of a company you think is
good, to gain a claim on some part of its fortunes.

It funds the pros, the Goldman Sachs ("Government Sachs") of the
world, and

That's voluntary--it only happens if you let it (i.e., day trade).

the need for showing quarterly earnings does longterm
damage to companies and jobs.

A separate problem, and not universal. I wish Barack's court followed the same
disclosure rules they impose on their subjects.

Small private companies, the ones who
create American jobs, are punished by the current tax policies that
favor the money dealers and funnel money into the public-stock market.

True.

Except for new issues, the stock market is
mostly a gambling pool.

Certainly, many treat it that way. The Feds consider it one more way to
manipulate the economy (by making investors think they're richer).

Yellen is on the back of a tiger she can't get off. She doesn't dare
to do anything sensible for fear of being blamed for triggering the
next, coming crash.

The bill for the pseudo-stimulus (about .3 GDP*years worth) has to come due
eventually. We spent about 5 years printing 6% of GDP in phony prosperity,
borrowed from our future. The only question is whether we'll make monthly
installments (reductions in future growth), or have the bill come due all
at once.

James

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 22:30:43 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:32:55 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us:

Rich people organize ordinary people to get stuff done. Humans are
tribal and need leaders.

You ain't one.

How many people report to you?

How many people do you report to, in the sense of management levels? I
know some people who are at the bottom of level 12.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
<dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they formulate
a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a
la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

I got rich by buying stocks instead of buying new cars. Some of it was luck, but mostly just recognizing what companies seemed to have their act together and buying their stock. I bought Texas Instruments, John Fluke, IBM, Hexcel, and others. And bought S & P 500 index funds in my 401K . I also bought a little Nucor stock when it was Nuclear Corp of America. Should have lost my ass on that, but it turned out okay.

It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.

Dan

I don't think that buying established stocks, getting rich that way,
does society much good. Except for new issues, the stock market is
mostly a gambling pool.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 3:09:31 PM UTC-4, Tom Miller wrote:

Rule #3 Never take any advise on buying stocks from someone on Usenet.

Rule #4 Never take any advise on buying stocks at face value if the person can profit from what you do.

Dan

 

[amdx]

On 8/29/2015 9:05 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, 30 August 2015 10:33:06 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:29:30 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:12:49 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:


James Arthur's fond conviction that the rich should be allowed to get even richer at everybody else's expense is roughly what you'd expect from somebody who managed to get rich enough to retire at 34, but it doesn't seem to be a good way to generate persistent economic growth.

---
The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they formulate
a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a
la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

Some people get rich as a by-product of building things that they have
a passion for. Of course, some other people get rich because all they
care about is wealth and power. Public policy seems to favor the
latter.

Others, get rich by living on less than their income and investing the
rest in the stock market and rental properties.
When you have savings, there are great tax deductions you can use.
SEP, IRA, 401K, HSA.

You resent the rich because you didn't have the balls to go for the
prize when you could, and now it's too late for you to do anything but
kvetch about how - if you'd only been given permission - you could be
as important as your alliance allowed.

John Fields


Rich people organize ordinary people to get stuff done. Humans are
tribal and need leaders.

And rich people are the only people who can defer significant
consumption in favor of investment.

I don't know why so many people resent the rich. Rich people's wealth
is mostly stock shares, which are just pieces of paper. A billionaire
doesn't eat a hundred times as much as the average person, and doesn't
live in a million square foot house.

> makes the point that the rich do go around emphasizing the fact that they are richer than the rest of us, and this makes all the social gradients steeper, which doesn't seem to do anything good for the rest of us.

I'm not sure that's true.

https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-act-like-a-millionaire-2013-8


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-you-can-be-the-millionaire-next-door-2015-07-14


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/author-of-%E2%80%9Cthe-millionaire-next-door%E2%80%9D-dies-%E2%80%94-7-key-insights-from-his-book-213300777.html


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/8-secrets-for-success-from-early-retirees-2014-02-05

Mikek

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 10:37:40 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> Gave us:

On 8/25/2015 8:57 PM, amdx wrote:

My house dropped in value by 1/2,

Is that including the absurd doubling in value (or more) in the few
years immediately before the bubble burst?

During which time he was dumb enough to buy it.

 

[Les Cargill]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:29:30 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
snip

And rich people are the only people who can defer significant
consumption in favor of investment.

The first rich person I ran into had a wedding gift of several million
1970s dollars. The whole "live frugally and become rich" thing is fine
if you're prepared to remain single and/or not procreate. Other
than that, you'll need some sort of Dutch Uncle.

One of the richest I worked for wore Kmart clothes and drove an oldish
car, and lived in a nice but unfancy house. He was the sort who had a
PhD from a state U in the 1950s in physics and went to work for a
Fortune 500 until the Fortune 500 left millions on the ground, so
he pulled a startup in the 1980s.

But he made most of his money in real estate.

> I don't know why so many people resent the rich.

They have little else to do. It's the only version of the Cinderella
myth left.

Rich people's wealth
is mostly stock shares, which are just pieces of paper. A billionaire
doesn't eat a hundred times as much as the average person, and doesn't
live in a million square foot house.

The "real" part of the economy - the part you can see and is not
paper wealth - has grown much more slowly than stocks and paper.

--
Les Cargill

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 08:10:42 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 22:30:43 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:32:55 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us:

Rich people organize ordinary people to get stuff done. Humans are
tribal and need leaders.

You ain't one.

How many people report to you?

You are an idiot under a self imposed illusion that you are a leader.

How many people do you report to, in the sense of management levels?

When I file for a grant, several levels of approval are required.

I know some people who are at the bottom of level 12.

Your achievement assessment criteria are also fucked up, child.

 

[amdx]

On 8/30/2015 9:12 AM, rickman wrote:

On 8/29/2015 11:03 PM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they formulate
a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a
la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.

I got my daughter fully funding her 401K and Roth starting at 23 yrs old.

Yes, the best way to be rich is to choose your parents wisely.

Nah, that's better for determining how long you live, doesn't
necessarily have anything to do with getting rich.

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 08:35:46 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
<dcaster@krl.org> Gave us:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 9:36:47 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> Gave us:

I got rich by buying stocks instead of buying new cars.

It certainly wasn't from interpreting Usenet posts. Larkin did not
post that, ya dope.

What is your point?

Dan

Yet another failure to hear those helicopter blades whooshing
overhead.

Must be because they were MILES over your head.

 

[amdx]

On 8/30/2015 10:16 AM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they formulate
a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a
la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

I got rich by buying stocks instead of buying new cars. Some of it was luck, but mostly just recognizing what companies seemed to have their act together and buying their stock. I bought Texas Instruments, John Fluke, IBM, Hexcel, and others. And bought S & P 500 index funds in my 401K . I also bought a little Nucor stock when it was Nuclear Corp of America. Should have lost my ass on that, but it turned out okay.

It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.


Dan

Except for new issues, the stock market is
mostly a gambling pool.

Sorry John, on this one I need you need to get educated.

In my lifetime (1955) the S&P 500 has went from 50 to 2100.
A 42* multiple, inflation is only a 9 multiple.
Just Dollar Cost Average into a low cost total stock market index, and
hold it until you near retirement, Then you need to back off on the
percentage of stocks**.
Rule #1 You can't time the market.
Rule #2 Don't panic and sell at the bottom of a market correction.

Mikek


* Doesn't include dividends.

** You need to reduce stock exposure at retirement because the market
does go down and you don't want to withdraw living expenses from a
portfolio that has dropped 35%.
You then with draw from bonds or other fixed income assets.

Here's a neat program that uses historical stock market returns to
see if your portfolio will have money until you die.
It starts with your portfolio, spending rate and inflation, (other
data can be included*) Then, it makes, say a 30 year run from 1900 to
1930. Then repeats that from 1901 to 1931, On and on until it runs 1985
to 2015. If your money goes below zero dollars on any 30 year run, you
need more money.
Of course, previous returns have no bearing on the future, but,
unless you think the stock market will change it's return
during your retirement, it's a neat test of your portfolio.
> http://www.firecalc.com/

* you can add when and how much SS income, any pension income, spending
can increase with inflation and several other options can be included.

 

[amdx]

On 8/29/2015 8:56 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

This isn't a tract about cutting everybody down to the same level. The US in 1970 had lots of rich people, but they weren't s rich as they are now, and weren't creating the social problems that the extra money they've accumulated since then have exaggerated.

Neither Scandinavia nor Germany is short of rich people - it's just that they aren't as rich as their US equivalents, and don't put the same strain on the social fabric, nor feel the need to rip off the middle class to make themselves even richer.

I wonder what rich means.
Using the 4% withdrawal rule, a $1 Million portfolio will generate
$40,000 for the rest of your life. Is that rich?

Mikek

 

[amdx]

On 8/30/2015 9:37 AM, rickman wrote:

On 8/25/2015 8:57 PM, amdx wrote:

My house dropped in value by 1/2,

Is that including the absurd doubling in value (or more) in the few
years immediately before the bubble burst?

I paid $83K in 1994, during the 2006 boom, homes in my neighborhood
were going $250 to $270K. Now, If I got $140K I'd be very lucky, if, I
was selling, I'm not.
Ok, I exaggerated the 1/2, a little.

Mikek

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 09:58:03 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
<dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 12:20:09 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


What you snipped - without marking the snip - was

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

makes the point that the rich do go around emphasizing the fact that they are richer than the rest of us, and this makes all the social gradients steeper, which doesn't seem to do anything good for the rest of us.

I'm not sure that's true.

Then you'd better read the book.

If you look at my past posts , you will see that I seldom emphasize my wealth and certainly do not say I am richer than the rest of us. For one thing, I worked in the Seattle area and know several of Microsoft people. And while they do not emphasize their wealth, I am sure it is more than mine. I do try to point out that one can become rich without too much effort and without needing a silver spoon.

Dan

A salaried person can become a millionaire by careful saving and
investment, but not likely to become a billionaire.

Someone said that the best way to wind up with a million dollars is to
inherit a billion dollars. The really rich people, these days, made it
themselves somehow. Some actually did something useful.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:04:27 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 08:10:42 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 22:30:43 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:32:55 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us:

Rich people organize ordinary people to get stuff done. Humans are
tribal and need leaders.

You ain't one.

How many people report to you?

You are an idiot under a self imposed illusion that you are a leader.

I interpret that response as "zero."

How many people do you report to, in the sense of management levels?

When I file for a grant, several levels of approval are required.

I know some people who are at the bottom of level 12.


Your achievement assessment criteria are also fucked up, child.

So, you're at the very bottom of a big heap.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 08:56:58 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
<dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

I don't think that buying established stocks, getting rich that way,
does society much good. Except for new issues, the stock market is
mostly a gambling pool.

I disagree with you there. Investing in the stock market does involve a little risk, but it is not much of a gamble. If you buy say ten stocks, there is almost no gamble. One or two may go belly up, but it is extremely unlikely that all will. And you will be better off than if you put your money in a savings account.

The system is a gamble, basically a casino with a house cut. Stocks
have value because other investors think they have value. Most stocks
are morally equivalent to investing in Beanie Babies.

IPOs and later rounds of new investment help companies grow. Trading
established shares don't, at least not directly.

I'd rather invest in my own company, where I can try to make sure it's
going to be productive, create products and IP and jobs.

You are buying shares of a company. So does the company do society much good?
Do you think Texas Instruments does society much good? Anyway investing in existing companies may not do society much good, but it certainly does not do society much harm.

No, there are indirect benefits, like running up the market price of
shares, which inspires employees and such.

And consider there would be no new issues unless there was a market for the shares of companies after the initial offering.

True. That's a by-product of the way the system works. But there are
dangers, too.

Sure inventing a new product, may be better for society, but realistically how many folks are going to do that. And just because you own stocks , does not mean you can not do something that helps society. I volunteer at a local museum and work at the friends of the library book sale.

Recycling some earnings into charitable causes is good. We do that in
our company.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:42:15 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

On 8/30/2015 10:16 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they formulate
a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a
la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

I got rich by buying stocks instead of buying new cars. Some of it was luck, but mostly just recognizing what companies seemed to have their act together and buying their stock. I bought Texas Instruments, John Fluke, IBM, Hexcel, and others. And bought S & P 500 index funds in my 401K . I also bought a little Nucor stock when it was Nuclear Corp of America. Should have lost my ass on that, but it turned out okay.

It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.


Dan


Except for new issues, the stock market is
mostly a gambling pool.


Sorry John, on this one I need you need to get educated.

In my lifetime (1955) the S&P 500 has went from 50 to 2100.
A 42* multiple, inflation is only a 9 multiple.

Sure, but stocks have a higher value mostly because other shareholders
think they do. Some popular stocks are in companies that don't make
money and probably never will.

Just Dollar Cost Average into a low cost total stock market index, and
hold it until you near retirement, Then you need to back off on the
percentage of stocks**.
Rule #1 You can't time the market.

Sometimes you can.

>Rule #2 Don't panic and sell at the bottom of a market correction.

Agree on that one.

Mikek


* Doesn't include dividends.

Dividends used to be the main reason to hold stocks. That's less
common now, mostly because dividends are double taxed. That's why
there are buybacks and such.

** You need to reduce stock exposure at retirement because the market
does go down and you don't want to withdraw living expenses from a
portfolio that has dropped 35%.
You then with draw from bonds or other fixed income assets.

Here's a neat program that uses historical stock market returns to
see if your portfolio will have money until you die.
It starts with your portfolio, spending rate and inflation, (other
data can be included*) Then, it makes, say a 30 year run from 1900 to
1930. Then repeats that from 1901 to 1931, On and on until it runs 1985
to 2015. If your money goes below zero dollars on any 30 year run, you
need more money.
Of course, previous returns have no bearing on the future, but,
unless you think the stock market will change it's return
during your retirement, it's a neat test of your portfolio.
http://www.firecalc.com/

* you can add when and how much SS income, any pension income, spending
can increase with inflation and several other options can be included.

What dissapoints me is that our capital-intensive economy favors the
prople who can invest, and greatly favors the wheeler-dealers and
brokerages, and destroys small companies and working-class jobs.
Because Wall Street runs Washington.

The big political movers these days seem to be ex-speculators
(including ex-Nazis) and former hedge fund managers, parasites in my
book.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:01:53 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:29:30 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
snip

And rich people are the only people who can defer significant
consumption in favor of investment.


The first rich person I ran into had a wedding gift of several million
1970s dollars. The whole "live frugally and become rich" thing is fine
if you're prepared to remain single and/or not procreate. Other
than that, you'll need some sort of Dutch Uncle.

One of the richest I worked for wore Kmart clothes and drove an oldish
car, and lived in a nice but unfancy house. He was the sort who had a
PhD from a state U in the 1950s in physics and went to work for a
Fortune 500 until the Fortune 500 left millions on the ground, so
he pulled a startup in the 1980s.

I know a guy who co-founded a laser company that was recently sold for
over two billion dollars. He still goes into the lab every day, trying
to make the things better. He also designs circuits and builds them at
home while he watches TV. He's a mediocre circuit designer, but
doesn't resent better ideas.

But he made most of his money in real estate.

I don't know why so many people resent the rich.

They have little else to do. It's the only version of the Cinderella
myth left.

Rich people's wealth
is mostly stock shares, which are just pieces of paper. A billionaire
doesn't eat a hundred times as much as the average person, and doesn't
live in a million square foot house.


The "real" part of the economy - the part you can see and is not
paper wealth - has grown much more slowly than stocks and paper.

Yup. Crashes happen that way.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 4:21:29 PM UTC-4, M Philbrook wrote:

So, how old was he when he started college?

For some reason the math does not add up? Maybe I should be a
banker and roll some numbers to fake the customer out..

Jamie

He was 17. The math is at age one he had $1000. At age 2 he had $2000 that I put in plus maybe $100 from the increase in value of the first $1000. At age 3 he had $3000 that I put in plus maybe $300 from the increase in value. At age 5 or 6 the increase in value was enough that I only put in about $500. And the next year I put in a few hundred dollars. After that I did not have to put in any money, and by the time he was about 10 the increase in value was several thousand dollars. When he was in college, the increase in value was greater than his tuition plus room and board. But I still paid a couple of thousand of his costs.

He did have some good luck. I invested it in a mutual fund that specialized in insurance stocks. And then that fund got rolled over into Magellan Fund.

Dan

 

[rickman]

On 8/30/2015 12:58 PM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 12:20:09 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


What you snipped - without marking the snip - was

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better


makes the point that the rich do go around emphasizing the fact
that they are richer than the rest of us, and this makes all
the social gradients steeper, which doesn't seem to do anything
good for the rest of us.

I'm not sure that's true.

Then you'd better read the book.

If you look at my past posts , you will see that I seldom emphasize
my wealth and certainly do not say I am richer than the rest of us.
For one thing, I worked in the Seattle area and know several of
Microsoft people. And while they do not emphasize their wealth, I am
sure it is more than mine. I do try to point out that one can
become rich without too much effort and without needing a silver
spoon.

Yes, it is true that "one" can become rich by many means. But everyone
can't become rich. By definition "rich" is having a higher wealth than
many others. If everyone becomes "rich" it is no longer rich. In fact,
by considering how hard we need to work and the rewards we obtain most
people in the US are "rich" compared to those living 100 years ago.

--

Rick